[email protected] aan moq_discuss details weergeven 15:57 (20 minuten geleden)
Hi Steve, Sorry, I don't follow your argument. You say purpose is something that goes on within the universe. Is not what goes on within the universe (life) also part of the universe? And if a part, is it not correct to say the universe exhibits purpose? IMO purpose doesn't have to stand outside the universe for us to say the universe is purposeful. To deny the universe is purposeful is a self- contradictory because the denial itself presupposes purpose in making the denial. Certainly the MOQ posits universal purpose -- towards betterness. Maybe I'm missing something. Best, Platt in a sol/som environment the question is briljantly formulated , Platt,but yes you miss something. The denial itself does not exist on its own as an entity, the denial requires an observer to make the denial, and reversed , to make the question in the first place. The question about purpose preceides both.(again implying the observer to make the question.) Radical empirisism, strangely as it seems ,is also backwards projectable. There is no history, no past , exept for the written down, recorded, or otherwise halted past,history itself does not exist, according to W Zurek, the leading Los Alamos nr 1 quantum physiks geek. Because there is no history, exept the recorded part, there is no purpose or cause, it has left us, leaving no traces. 2010/10/26 <[email protected]> > Hi Steve, > > Sorry, I don't follow your argument. You say purpose is something that goes > on > within the universe. Is not what goes on within the universe (life) also > part > of the universe? And if a part, is it not correct to say the universe > exhibits > purpose? > > IMO purpose doesn't have to stand outside the universe for us to say the > universe is purposeful. To deny the universe is purposeful is a self- > contradictory because the denial itself presupposes purpose in making the > denial. > > Certainly the MOQ posits universal purpose -- towards betterness. > > Maybe I'm missing something. > > Best, > Platt > > > On 26 Oct 2010 at 8:28, Steven Peterson wrote: > > Hi Platt, > > Platt: > Example: science claims the universe has no purpose, but science and > scientists (not to mention all of life) exhibit purpose constantly. > > Steve: > But we are talking about the purpose of the universe itself, so this > isn't a well-formulated question. Purpose is something that goes on > within the universe. How could there be a purpose that stands outside > of the universe if the universe means "everything that exists"? Such a > purpose then by definition does not exist. (Note that if any deities > exist, they are part of "everything that exists.") What is the purpose > of purpose? > > Best, > Steve > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
